Add a Review

  • This should have been a documentary film instead of a four episode mini series. The episodes are filled with so many repeated flashbacks and images that if you would leave them out it could be two episodes shorter. Because of that it doesn't have a nice flow and I feel like they could have easily told the story in 90 minutes.

    I also am not a fan of the reconstructions with actors, but that's just a personal thing. Seeing ''Farak'' on the stand telling her story and in the lab working made the whole thing feel like the story itself wasn't interesting enough to make the documentary.
  • How to Fix a Drug Scandal (2020-2020) Amazing doc about the drug testing system, and the lengths the District Attorney and Attorney General's offices are willing to take to keep injustice contained and not investigated. This shows the egregious faults and clear conflict of interest in the prosecutorial process by allowing their own prosecutors to determine what is, and what is not, relevant to the defense. They have a duty, a sworn and solemn responsibility, to turn over any exculpatory evidence in discovery to the defense. This doc clearly shows just how flawed that premise is at the cost of social justice and affection thousands of people. A 4 part series everyone should be aware of. And it's just One of the many roadblocks to justice systemic in the judicial process. Don't even get me started on the for profit prison systems, the worst case of conflict of interest I can think of, or the fact that after serving out their complete sentences, felons are never free of the stain as they attempt to renter society in an endlessly uphill battle to find employment, gain housing, secure loans, or even reacquire their basic rights as citizens like their right to vote! This whole system and the fact that over 60% of all inmates are for drug related offenses as a result of a 50 year old misguided drug policy which has clearly been demonstrated to be an utter failure. Punishing drug users with jail time and treating them as criminals instead of the addicts they are needing treatment, is a policy which completely fails to address the real problem and sadly has contributed to a US per capita incarnation rate higher than Any Other Country In The World! Is that really a #1 ranking we wish to have or can be proud of? I think not.
  • Greetings again from the darkness. We expect the chef to taste the special of the day. We don't expect the bench chemist to personally try out the drugs being tested for a criminal case. This 4-part DocuSeries from Netflix explores not one, but two of the most explosive cases in Massachusetts history. Were these Law Enforcement scandals? Were these workplace scandals? Were there miscarriages of justice? The simple answer to all three questions is yes, and the series breaks down the stunning details as well as the aftermath.

    Most DocuSeries focus on one crime or one criminal. Here, documentarian Erin Lee Carr delivers two stories connected by job description, consequences and geography. In the state of Massachusetts, two drug testing laboratories are used for the majority of drug cases. The Hinton lab covers Boston and the eastern part of the state, while the Amherst lab covers the west, including Springfield, the capital for illegal drugs. In the Hinton lab, it was discovered that "star" chemist Annie Dookhan had illegally falsified thousands of drug tests. In the Amherst lab, chemist Sonja Farak admitted not just to using the drugs she was testing, but using those drugs while on the job.

    Either of these stories are worthy of documentary treatment, and yet combining them generates even more impact, both from a viewing standpoint and for the legal fallout. Ms. Farak's story is easily the most fascinating. There is a reason that many bakers carry a few extra pounds ... they sample the goods. So why shouldn't we be extra cautious with those who test illicit drugs all day, every day? Evidently no one in Massachusetts ever thought to ask the question, as Ms. Farak worked in the Amherst office for nearly 10 years with minimal oversight. She literally walked across the hall from the lab to smoke crack cocaine, and even cooked the drug at her desk!

    If not for the Farak story, we would likely find Annie Dookhan's case to be one of the most outrageous we've heard. Lauded as the highest producing chemist in the busy Hinton lab where she worked for 9 years, it turns out Ms. Dookhan used "dry labbing" to sustain her numbers. Dry labbing is basically eye-balling substances to determine if they are likely illegal drugs. These two women were involved in over 50,000 cases, including those for which they testified in court. They are accused of "fraud on the court."

    As you might imagine, defense attorneys were in an uproar as the details in these cases emerged. Ms. Carr focuses her attention on defense attorney Luke Ryan, and one of his collaborating trial attorneys, Jared Olanoff. While law enforcement and prosecutors fought to maintain the convictions, Mr. Ryan spent a significant portion of his time researching, tracking down evidence, and making the case that thousands of convictions should be overturned, with prisoners released and criminal records cleared. It's particular disheartening to see Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley take the stance that Ms. Farak's inappropriate actions were limited in scope to just a few cases. Ms. Coakley's statements were made before any type of investigation had been done, so it was clearly an attempt to minimize attention from the media, public and other attorneys.

    Interviews with Ms. Farak's mother and younger sister Amy are included. Their words help personalize the film, since dramatizations and archival clips are used for Farak's stunning testimony. The actions of so many are questioned throughout. Even with limited budgets, how are these chemists not subjected to some basic oversight? How does Judge Kindred make the ruling he does? Why did the ACLU need to get involved in what seems like a pretty straightforward situation? What happens if Luke Ryan doesn't remain diligent in his pursuit of justice? What if the State Supreme Court had refused to hear the cases?

    Some background information is provided for both women, including the fact that Sonja Farak was the first girl to play high school football in Rhode Island. Both women had strong academic backgrounds, but education doesn't always make for good judgment. This DocuSeries from Ms. Carr is exceptionally well crafted and the stories move fast and keep us spellbound. More than 50,000 cases were impacted by the inappropriate and illegal actions of these two trusted chemists, and their actions cast doubt on the entire judicial system. Let's just hope that the next time one of your co-workers is sneaking off 10 times a day to smoke crack, that someone will say something to somebody!
  • gkeller-807525 April 2020
    This is something that is never highlighted amd talked about. We watched the whole thing last night and found it intresting and well done. I think things like this go on all of the time and we don't know about it. They look at,each person as a whole person and how messed the system us and how minorities get slammed with sentencing for which they may not deserve and a white chemist get only 18 mo for way worse.
  • kosmasp28 June 2020
    Getting a fix I guess. Well more than one in this case (cases). When you have a person in control of ... controlling and being such an important part of investigations and verdicts ... well I don't have to spell out the obvious now do I? Then again, some still needed it to be spilled out.

    And yes, if you catch someone doing something illegal, all their work is tainted. Even the ones that may have been right(fully accused). I understand that some will have issues with that, but I hope you understand that everyone should have as fair a trial as possible. And that just wasn't the case. The documentary may need more time than some have patience for I reckon, but it's still quite impactful overall - and disturbing!
  • It's a much maligned group by many Americans, but I cannot imagine somebody watching this documentary series and not at the very least judging Luke Ryan as a hero.
  • While many reviews debate the politics and potential bias of this series, at the end of the days one thing remains: rules are rules.

    If you're responsible for the analysis and reporting of alleged drug seizures, you must do so objectively, accurately and honestly. To perform this task while impaired by drugs or, even worse, not testing but signing off on positive results is both unethical and unacceptable. For government departments to then minimise or bury the issues only worsens the situation.

    At the end of the day, this was an entertaining and informative program that highlights, yet again, the flawed nature of our 'Justice System'.
  • It was a fault system, there were immoral employees and obviosly poor management, it was a legal scandal for sure.. But are we gonna pretend that even one percent of those bags contained anything else but drugs? The way they portrayed these convicts as simply innocent, poor angels being falsely accused is kind of ridicolus. What happend was that that christmas came early for them, and we all now who santa(s) was...
  • Never heard of these cases! Learning about them made me concerned if what happened in these cases is happening elsewhere.

    The Pros: * Giving the details of Forak's case * The decision to re-enact Forak's case. Humanized her instead of making her look like a screw-up

    The Cons: * The handling of the telling of Doobak's story/case. Despite her story kinda opening the floodgates of the drug scandal, her story felt like a footnote. Although they had less access to info about her, they made that so clear that they might as well as not mentioned her. She isn't humanized. She is demonized because we lack so much of her story and they put so little effort into telling her story. And when they bounce back and forth between the the Doobak and Forak cases, things get confusing.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Reading the reviews of this documentary is almost as interesting as watching the film itself. It would seem to me that those exhibiting bias are the ones who are saying "you need to take druggies off the street" or "Xmas comes early for the dope dealers". Seems to me that a 7 or 8 year sentence for selling one $20 bag of her ion is more than a little harsh. But I'm not sitting around polishing my police badge or playing with my gun either. None of these drug dealers ever took an oath to "uphold the law", unlike a few of the assorted District Attorneys or Attorneys General depicted in the film. That goes double for the state police charged with investigating the case. And it goes triple for the judges who oversaw the whole system. Thankfully this state still has a Supreme Judicial Court that shows off pretty well in the film. Not all the Attorneys General or District Attorneys are bad. Some seem great, there are a few meatheads which are easy to spot depending on ones own personal biases I suppose. But hey, they were all guilty anyway, lock em all up, throw away the keys.

    Whatever happened to the legal principal or principals that this country were founded on? Like: everyone is entitled to a FAIR trial? But I guess the cops and the district attorneys can bend or even break the rules because hey, they are all guilty anyway? Better the cops and district attorneys determine guilt or innocence, why do we waste time with judges & juries anyway? Maybe we should just bring back lynching? Those were the good old days eh?

    How one analyst can do thousands more tests than another, and not be called out; or who decided that it was a good idea NOT to drug test people that work in drug labs? These are the real questions.

    Who are the truly guilty parties in this fiasco? I guess that all depends on your personal bias?
  • susieguti26 April 2020
    A docuseries that shows the importance of having supervision and quality control in every field - cause there be people with personality disorders everywhere, and if you ask me, becoming a drug addict can happen to the best of us when it is that easy to take a little cocaine in liquid form from time to time and no one is ever going to catch you.

    Also, when lawyers care more about winning their cases than doing what is right. Smh.
  • NeedAnswers7 April 2020
    Very well done from start to finish. The cover ups really get the viewer frustrated with the need to see resolution. I'm not good at staying up late but was up until midnight finishing this.
  • This is an incredibly damning story against Massachusetts as well as the US justice system in general. But it is a 90-minute show that was stretched out over twice that length, and watching it is is sometimes frustrating as the same information is presented over and over, and so very s-l-o-w-l-y
  • It exposes incompetence and holes in the justice system but the actual subtitle of the documentary is "ACLU guide to drug dealing: How to get out on a technicality". The most biased and tiresome part is that the drug dealers and their goodwill defence attorneys are present as the victims and good guys, and judges and prosecutors as the bag guys. Even the main corrupt scumbag, that served only 18 months in prison and cost the taxpayer millions, is presented as a victim in the last episode.
  • jonburgon-550189 April 2020
    To try to present defence lawyers as moral guardians and drug dealers as having been 'set up' is where this documentary goes wrong. Rules are rules, they messed up - they should rightly pay the price - and criminals were released, that should have been the story. Defence lawyers are basically in it for power and money, not as they like to let you know as often as they can, to protect the rights of an individual...how many decent, law abiding members of the community have need of one? The focus should have been 'this is what happens if a state employee messes up and bureaucrats (who have a job, let's face it, it's is to keep criminals in, not to release them) try to hide it, all these people are released back into your community'.
  • STAR RATING: ***** Saturday Night **** Friday Night *** Friday Morning ** Sunday Night * Monday Morning

    SEASON ONE

    In 2013, Sonja Farek (Shannon O' Neill), a drug test analyst in Oklahoma, was discovered to be using drugs taken during police seizures, for her own recreational use while working in the lab. This lead to a number of convictions for drug offences being investigated, and in some cases, overturned. Other instances of this were recorded over the country, leading to a widespread examination of corruption within the police and criminal justice system, and who was really to blame and who was being hung out to dry.

    The fact is stranger than fiction mantra strikes again with this latest Netflix documentary series, delving into the world of the war on drugs and the validity of those who work within it. Yes, even the people who test the purity of drugs seized are taking a bit on the side, as in the case of Sonja Farek, our main protagonist, a lonely, unappreciated, but by all accounts dedicated and professional worker, who tried to fill the emptiness of her existence with the seized narcotics that were left too easily within temptation's grasp.

    I've lamented, in numourous other reviews, how overly lengthy NF tends to make their series, so it's something of a contradiction that I think this one suffers from being too short, with four thorough but crammed episodes not really giving the story enough time to get fleshed out enough to really delve into the heart of the subject matter, a shame since there's lots of meaty potential to do so. Another issue is the unsure tonal balance. As with all their documentary series, NF gives it the veneer of a serious, no holds barred presentation, but at times it appears to have more of a cool, edgy vibe to it, that puts it at odds with what it's trying to be.

    It's still interesting and effective, though, a depiction of something that had all the potential to go on, and went on under everyone's noses until it blew up and became a big, well, scandal. ***
  • Very informative and fascinating look at misconduct and state coverup of a crime lab scandal. The problem is that the series is too repetitive and wastes too much time on unnecessary details. Could have easily been done in a 2 hr documentary movie format.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    What I found interesting is how events flipped the script in life and defense attorneys ultimately became the prosecutors.

    Other reviews will tell you it was an injustice to let convicted drug dealers go free. But if the AGs had gone by the book the first go around and the labs had quality and safety controls none of this mess would have happened.
  • This is obviously a one sided documentary that understandably vilifies the corrupt prosecutors, yet exaggerates the victimization of the perpetrators and prosecuted. The vast majority of these people were guilty, regardless of the evidence tampering. They got off on a very reasonable technicality, but don't play sad music and try to distract us from the fact these people should be accountable for their choices. We've all seen the After School Specials and know exactly how drugs ruin communities. There is a bigger issue here about the gargantuan failure that is the war on drugs and the obvious cracks in the justice system, but this Doc keeps things fairly intimate and stretches the story to about two episodes too long. I enjoyed this very much, however don't ask me to condemn one side while also asking me to sympathize for the other when all are wrong on one level or another
  • This is easily one of the best researched, prepared, and presented legal docs ever made. The legal case is so well outlined that to come to any other conclusion would require a twisting of logic that can only be arrived at by selective learning or having an agenda (you worked for the Mass AG). Just watch it for yourself. Don't let some other person cause you to miss out.
  • This is a well made and detailed investigation into how crime labs utterly failed in their duty, aided by prosectutors and then a coverup was attempted which included judges and even the attourney generals office. How anybody has any faith at all in American justice, purely on this and many other Netflix documentaries evidence is beyond me.
  • ruirebgamboa2 April 2020
    Warning: Spoilers
    They make it look as if the jailed guys are inocent, because the tester messed up. It's not necessarly like that. If a guy is busted selling "drugs" to a cop, he is not inocent because the system failed to prove it was really a forbiden substance. And they do this very smoothly, if one only follows what they want, one will lose track of what is really important: take drug dealers off the streets. The rest is a story about people that use the drugs they are supposed to test, or didn't test at all. I mean, don't get me wrong: it's a huge fail by the system and it should be corrected. But don't try to sell us that drug dealers are inocent. I would say that none of the people whose drugs werent tested were inocent. And that's what really horrid about this documentary: it puts the viewer in an awful position of having to take sides with drug dealers. Why didn't they showed a case of one guy that never had a drug related problem with the law and was convicted because of those testers? I tell you why: it doesn't exist.
  • What an amazing story. Two separate and very troubled chemical/drug testers for the state of Massachusetts wreak havoc on a system that needed to be looked at actually. As wrong as those two women were, they actually ended up doing that state an immense favor. My heart and admiration go out to defense lawyers. The two (as well as the ACLU) highlighted here were so dignified, diligent and ethical. Especially Luke Ryan. What an amazing and kind man. Great story. Is it a bit drawn out? Maybe but it went on for over a dozen years so it needed to be all told.
  • I binged the entire series in one sitting. The professional misconduct of so many will make you rage. But more importantly, you'll gain a great appreciation for the hard work of defense attorneys that never give up.
  • The director moved plot away a little from the blaming of DA judiciary system, which every other documentary is doing it right now, which we know is corrupt from many cases, but went to instead in depth, the causes of these individuals actions , and personalities and the existing failures in the system...and it's also based on few attorneys who kept on pushing for evidence and truth and never left hope...happy ending and positive results for the affected individuals.
An error has occured. Please try again.